Skip to main content

Stubbs v. State

Citations

  • 463 S.E.2d 686
  • 265 Ga. 883

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • explaining that “[d]irect evidence is that which is consistent with either the proposed conclusion or its opposite,” whereas “circumstantial evidence is that which is consistent with both the proposed conclusion and its opposite” (emphasis in original)
  • explaining that “[d]irect evidence is that which is consistent with either the proposed conclusion or its opposite,” whereas “circumstantial evidence is that which is consistent with both the proposed conclusion and its opposite” (emphasis in original)
  • “Direct evidence is that which is consistent with either the proposed conclusion or its opposite; circumstantial evidence is that which is consistent with both the proposed conclusion and its opposite.”
  • “[d]irect evidence is that which is consistent with either the proposed conclusion or its opposite; circumstantial evidence is that which is consistent with both the proposed conclusion and its opposite”
  • eyewitness testimony that he saw defendant commit the crime is direct evidence of guilt
  • “Our law remains clear: (1) Even in the absence of a request, a trial court must charge on the law of circumstantial evidence when the State’s case rests solely upon such evidence; (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Thompson, Fletcher, Carley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

37 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.